Mitchel v. Brown

California Court of Appeal Feb 10, 1947 No. Civ. 3513Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in excluding extrinsic evidence regarding the parties' intent and mistake, as the case was remanded for a full retrial on all issues raised by the pleadings. The plaintiffs were entitled to present evidence to establish the actual intent of the parties and whether the deed's language resulted from a mutual mistake.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in excluding extrinsic evidence regarding the parties' intent and alleged mistake in the deed.
Whether the prior appellate decision precluded the introduction of extrinsic evidence on retrial under the law of the case doctrine.
Whether the plaintiffs abandoned their claims regarding the intention of the parties and mistake by the nature of their trial conduct.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The judgment was reversed generally and the effect was to remand the case for a retrial on all issues, as though it had never been tried at all.”

“Whether or not the appellants abandoned their prayer for the reformation of this deed they were entitled, under the pleadings, to have the issues determined as to the actual intention of the parties”

“Not only was this evidence erroneously rejected but findings to the contrary were made which are entirely without support in the evidence.”

BARNARD, P. J.

In 1936, the defendants Brown executed and delivered to the predecessor of the plaintiffs a mineral deed conveying to them 2½ per cent of all oil and minerals underlying, or that might be produced from, described parcels of land in a certain section in Kern County. The only one of these parcels which is involved here was described in the typewritten deed as follows: “Parcel No. 5: the NW ¼ of said section 21.” At the time the Browns executed this deed the words “an undivided ½ of” were inserted in ink before the word “Parcel.”

The plaintiffs brought this action contending that they were entitled to 2½ per cent of the oil and minerals underlying this entire quarter section and not merely that percentage of the oil and minerals underlying an undivided half of this land. The first count of the complaint sought to quiet their title to

2y%

per cent of the oil etc., in the entire quarter section. The second cause of action alleged, among other things, that at the time the deed was executed it was the intention of all parties thereto that 2½ per cent of all oil etc., in the entire quarter section be conveyed; that in making this deed the grantors so described their title to the property as to limit the interest conveyed to 1% per cent of the oil and minerals within the property; that the grantee accepted the deed under the mistaken belief that it conveyed, in accordance with the original intention of the parties, 2% per cent of the oil and minerals underlying the entire property; that this mistake of the grantee was known to, or suspected by, the grantors at the time the deed was made; and that, after demand made, the grantors had refused to correct the mistake. There was a third cause of action for declaratory relief.

The answer admitted that the plaintiffs were entitled to 2% per cent of the oil and minerals underlying an undivided one-half interest in this land, or an undivided 1% per cent of such substances contained within the quarter section, but denied the other allegations referred to, and alleged that the

[60]

intention of the parties at all times was that 2% per cent of the oil and minerals underlying an undivided one-half of the property was being conveyed.

Mitchel v. Brown

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief